They have all these climate change conferences (by the way have you noticed that because the global temperature has not risen like it was expected to we are now on climate change rather than global warming "I find that interesting") but notice we all talk well (by we I mean the ruling bodies) but if we were serious we would be sharing technology with all the world not keeping secrets on how things work. If every scientist shared there knowledge with all then others would pick it up and the advances in science would grow exponentially. This would mean that some people would not make millions out of it so I suppose it will never happen but could mean we have the answers quicker.

In one of the replays to my last post the antibiotics was questioned and my answer is the following drug companies are large users of resources (power rare species of plant and animals) which they use to make there stuff.

Firstly global warming causes climate change. The world heats up and that causes all sorts of things to happen to the weather. Including droughts and torrential rains. Britain, for example has had more record rainfall in the last few years than since records started.

Scientists DO share their results. The scientific process includes publishing findings for the rest of the scientific community to debate. It's why Darwin had such a hard time.

And finally antibiotics were (I'm pretty sure) discovered on a piece of mouldy bread. I don't think any rare plants or animals were part of that discovery. The comment remaions the same - what does that have to do with global warming? You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that global warming isn't caused by man and then you say that the chemical/medicine industry causes it by the use of lots of resources.

Can I just ask if you think global warming is a fact.......Who is going to suffer for the change, are YOU willing to turn the electric and gas of.Are you willing to die rather than take antibioticsare you willing to use your excretions in the garden and eat only what you grow.Do you catch rain water to drink rather than use the mains.

So pleased you are enjoying it

Yes, I believe global warming is a fact
and

Yes, I believe mankind has made a contribution to that warming - BUT a relatively minor contribution. Hence, turning off my gas/ electric will have minuscule influence

However,

I still have to be convinced that the very small global warming seen so far is the cause of the apparent climate changes that have crept up on us over the last 100 years ie I am not yet convinced of a direct "warming to climate change" link OF THE MAGNITUDE suggested by the politicians and press.

AND
I also believe that both global warming and climate change will reverse directions (eventually) with or without input from mankind ie I believe they are largely natural phenomena, probably caused by movements within the Earth's magna. That magna will have currents induced by the rotational movement of the Earth just as the oceans have such currents. The magna does contain zones of different matter densities (and composition) - one or more of which is probably a very large mass high in iron and which normally locates at what we call a "pole".

Who is going to suffer - the folk in Bangladesh, various islands etc will all suffer in the short term because sea levels are rising and will continue to do so. I honestly do not think we can do a lot to stop the sea rising (before it falls again is (say) another few 100 years. However, be reminded that most of the Netherlands has existed very well below sea level for a long time and with time/ effort and MONEY some of the other vulnerable places could be saved.

The comment about antibiotics is spurious. Although the current major antibiotic (penicillins I suppose) DID have some discovery elements involving mouldy bread many other drugs that we have now and which we will have in the future can be derived from plant species - many of which come from rain forest areas. Let is take a very old example - quinine, from the bark of a tree. Sure, it is now all synthetic but that was the original source. The forests must be saved because of their potential as a source of many, many future medicines. That has nothing directly to do with climate change/ global warming. Sure, trees do have influences on CO2 levels and they do control a lot of water (both via the water vapour they emit and via the movement of liquid water they control with roots and land drainage). LOCALLY these have big effects on LOCAL climate - and they will have effects over wider areas through changes in rainfall pattern, river silting etc. I still have to be convinced that more trees as a potential sump for CO2 is likely to influence global warming or weather

For many, many years I used animal excretions to promote plant growth, and at one time that was (composted) human excretions. I hasten to add that this material was obtained (free of charge) from the local sewage works AFTER it had been properly treated. However, I still pee on the compost heap ! I have lived for years in parts of the world where such recycling of human waste was and still is quite normal. Age has led me to abandon my allotment garden, but at one time I grew all my own vegetables. I commend this activity to one and all. It keeps you fit and the veges are good. However, what the heck has this to do with global warming and climate change???? Ok, OK, I can hear the answer that too much food is shipped around the world using oil to provide the motive power and the oil creates CO2 etc etc I agree that not all such food movement is necessary - but a LOT of it is.

No, I do not catch rainwater to drink. I do catch some to feed the garden plants and when necessary to change the water in the pond because the frogs do not like tap water unless it has been left to "air" for a day or so to lose the chlorine residues. I do not keep fish, only frogs & toads. I like frogs & toads and they repay me by controlling slugs and snails.

Again - what the heck does this have to do with global warming or climate?

If indeed I (and several million others) did decide to consume/ use only rainwater then the larger scale consequences may not be beneficial to warming/climate. I suspect the authorities controlling our feeder reservoir would let that go to ruin such that it would either overflow or dry up.

The whole thing can't be trusted - I listened to a discussion today on TV (I didn't watch it so I don't know what programme or indeed who was talking on on it, but it was on BBC before lunchtime and after Country Tracks) and we were told that the average global temps only went up about a half a degree over a period of time that escaped me too, but apparently the rise was substantially less than expected...

So what's making both polar ice caps melt?

We need to clean up our act for sure and also do a lot of talking and even more doing as well as sharing info as far as possible.

Just a small comment on quinine as I happen to know a fair bit about malaria from research I did a few years back - quinine is now being widely used again to combat the disease as the stronger manufactured 'prophylactics' that replaced them no longer work on the various strains of anopheles mosquito that spread the microbes. Quinine is made from the bark of the aptly named Fever Tree (Cinchona) that are found in tropical and equatorial regions, but especially in S.America and in India (hence the popularity of gin and tonic with ex-pats over there).

Quinine was abandoned as a vaccine for malaria back in the 1940s but pharmaceutical companies still used it for treating other maladies (for instance it's recommended for leg cramps for pregnant women) and continued to used by medics for treating some of the various symptoms of malaria. Now quinine has come full circle in 'popularity' as the virus has become resistant to the modern drugs but is still treatable with the old 'fever tree' remedy... so there is some mileage in claiming that harvesting of natural rainforest resources continue as malaria is still and will always be a huge problem.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

Jan Van Quirm wrote:China and India can quite rightly tell us to go and get stuffed as their industrialisation process may or may not be as 'bad' as ours was a few centuries back - it's on a larger scale true, but our western industries were very well established and widespread as well as very, very dirty indeed over those centuries even though they're now beginning to clean up - a bit.

Actually, I'd say they're worse than us. China's passed the US as the biggest CO2 producer now (though they like to claim that it doesn't matter because they "have so many more people"... I really hate that excuse). The Victorian and Edwardian cities were famous for being polluted, but it was mainly confined to the densly poplulated cities like London, New York, and Boston. Also the pollutants were less toxic, primarily coal smoke, and biological waste. Not like today's modern factories that produce lead (car battery factories), murcury (mining operations), and various acids (IT companies) in large amounts.

bogieman wrote:if we were serious we would be sharing technology with all the world not keeping secrets on how things work. If every scientist shared there knowledge with all then others would pick it up and the advances in science would grow exponentially.

Ah, but I think you're fighting against two basic human instincts:1. The aquisition of money & securities.2. The desire to have a survivable "edge" over our fellow man.

Dr Theobald wrote:I agree that not all such food movement is necessary - but a LOT of it is.

I have to disagree with that. I think in most cases (not all) transportation of food is done for:1. Political reasons2. Economic reasons3. Luxury foods unavailable locally

None of these reasons seem "necessary".

Exceptions would be in cases in areas such as Japan that has a population that is unsupportable by local farms.

Jan Van Quirm wrote:we were told that the average global temps only went up about a half a degree over a period of time that escaped me too, but apparently the rise was substantially less than expected...

So what's making both polar ice caps melt?

The thing to remember about averages is that they are statistics, which can be very tricky and can be manipulated to appear to mean whatever the presenter wants to if not watched carefully.

The other thing to remember is that a rise in tempurature will affect the poles faster than the equatorial areas and that some areas may have reduced temps due to more rain (say, the UK?) which would further reduce the average.

One idea that I like was one proposed in a sci-fi novel by Kim Stanely Robinson called a "soletta". it's basicly a set of circular mirrored slats placed between a planet & the sun at the Lagrange 1 point. The slats can be turned, just like venetian blinds to direct more, or less, sunlight onto the planet.

Here is a simple drawing to show how it works:

The slats are mirrored on both sides so the sunlight bounces between them, striking both the front and the back, which helps it maintain it's position in space.

Jan Van Quirm wrote:we were told that the average global temps only went up about a half a degree over a period of time that escaped me too, but apparently the rise was substantially less than expected...

So what's making both polar ice caps melt?

The thing to remember about averages is that they are statistics, which can be very tricky and can be manipulated to appear to mean whatever the presenter wants to if not watched carefully.

Absolutely. The stats quoted are probably the already discredited data from satellites, which showed only a small increase in mean global surface temperature until it was noticed that the upper layers of the atmosphere were actually cooling (possibly in a feedback response to the warming of the lower layers of the atmosphere), and these were the temperatures being recorded. When the lower layers of the atmosphere were recorded, the expected temp rise was observed.

Just because data is discredtied though, it dosen't stop those with an agenda from quoting away.

As for sharing technology and knowledge, scientists can't wait to get published. And technology gets patented - the info is out there, but you have to pay a license fee or wait 25 years to use it for free. And that's just how it is.

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

I read somewhere about melting glaciers and the earth axis. (not sure where but am adding it to the conversation)
Does the axis of the earth not revolve as well as the earth spinning on it taking the top of the earth closer to the sun therefore increasing the temperature every 100,000 years or so and because of this that is why we are getting melted glaciers as we are on the getting closer phase.

I suspect, Bogie, that you got that peculiar idea about polar shift from Clive Cussler's thriller called Polar Shift.

The short answer to your question, "Does the axis of the earth not revolve as well as the earth spinning on it taking the top of the earth closer to the sun therefore increasing the temperature every 100,000 years or so and because of this that is why we are getting melted glaciers as we are on the getting closer phase." is a resounding NO!

In the first place if your theory had any validity, then either the Arctic or the Antarctic polar ice would be melting--but not both. And the evidence of the scientific community shows that there have been no significant cataclysmic polar shifts in approximately 200 million years.

I think you're talking about Milankovich cycles. At maximum tilt, both poles would receive more solar radiation, and so we might lose the ice caps at both poles - there are other factors involved of course. However, the last episode of maximum tilt was (I think) about 10 000 years ago, and we are heading towards minimum tilt, so if you're looking for a reason for global warming, this is not it.

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

Have to agree that it will take a world-wide effort to deal with Global Warming--which is why the conference in Copenhagen is so vitally important.

All of us can do some things to help--and raising public awareness of the dangers is vitally important. And thank the gods for Al Gore and others like him who have raised awareness of The Inconvient Truth. No wonder Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. I'm sick & tired of the clamor of yobos who deny the validity of the science so that they can avoid taking any responsibility for helping as much as they personally can.

The UN has just released a report to the conference in Copenhagen that the first decade of the 21st century is the hottest experienced by the whole world since record keeping began. ** We are all experiencing the kind of changes of weather (floods, droughts, hurricanes) that the scientists have been warning about for years. China, Brazil, India and other developing countries are showing more concern and awareness of the dangers (at least in some respects) than the developed world.

As the organizers of the conference said--we must act now!
** Link to News Story

Lord Ponsamby-Smyth wrote:The same people who are telling us about the global warming and flying about the world on quangoes, are more guilty than average joe who puts on his hallway light a few hours early each evening.

What are "quangoes"?

swreader wrote:The UN has just released a report to the conference in Copenhagen that the first decade of the 21st century is the hottest experienced by the whole world since record keeping began.

My brother's a scientist, working with nanotechnology, but that's all my poor brain is prepared to understand about what he does. He spends a lot of his time sharing his department's knowledge around the world at seminars. Some pockets of humanity still will not acknowledge the global need for sharing technology and I mean parts of South-east Asia in particular.
Global climate change is a fact. I have no doubt of this. Not a myth or government trying to scare us. Humankind has played a huge part in bringing it about due to flying in the face of the way Mother Nature provides the solution to every problem in her own good time. We, as a species, have just given the old girl too much to deal with and her resources cannot catch up. It's not her fault.
At ground level, I'm a horticulturist.